\documentclass[12pt]{article} 
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{bm} 
    \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.9}	
    \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.8}	
    \setcounter{topnumber}{2}
    \setcounter{bottomnumber}{2}
    \setcounter{totalnumber}{4}     
    \setcounter{dbltopnumber}{2}    
    \renewcommand{\dbltopfraction}{0.9}	
    \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.07}	
    \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.7}	% require fuller float pages
    \renewcommand{\dblfloatpagefraction}{0.7}	% require fuller float pages
\usepackage[round]{natbib}
\oddsidemargin= 0in
\textwidth=6.5in
\topmargin=0in
\headheight=0.0in
\headsep=0.0in
\textheight=9in

\usepackage[singlespacing]{setspace} 

\usepackage{hyperref} % \href{http://link.com}{link text}
\usepackage{graphicx} % for figures of all kinds
\usepackage[bf]{caption}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{dcolumn}  % enable decimal align tables
\setlength{\parindent}{1em} % 1em  indent first line

\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{ctable}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{endnotes}

\title{Replication\\Looks Like Me, Thinks Like Me: Descriptive Representation and Opinion Congruence in Brazil}

\author{Taylor C. Boas\\Boston University \and Amy Erica Smith\\Iowa State University}

\date{\textit{Latin American Research Review} 54, 2 (2019)}

\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\normalsize
This article argues that descriptive representation, or demographic similarities between
legislators and the public, can provide effective substantive representation of citizens'
concerns. We examine representation through the lens of opinion congruence or alignment in
the policy preferences of legislators and citizens sharing various identities. Congruence may
result from shared material interests or from self-selection into an identity group on the basis
of policy views, but it can also be a product of networks and organizations that socialize
masses and elites into a common worldview. Though political parties were historically the most
important agents of political socialization, we argue that religious organizations constitute
a more powerful socializing force in many new democracies. Examining the case of Brazil, we
draw on three legislative surveys and fifteen mass surveys to analyze congruence across seven
issue areas. Legislators and voters from underrepresented groups---women, Afro-Brazilians,
evangelical Christians, and those of lower social class---are generally closer in their opinions
than those sharing a party or electoral district. Evangelicals are often the most congruent.
Analyzing original surveys of congregations and clergy, we argue that this finding results from
the socializing role of churches.
\end{abstract}
\setcounter{page}{0}
\thispagestyle{empty}
\newpage

\section{Main Text Figures and Tables}

\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\caption{\textbf{Opinion Congruence: Differences in Distributions}}
	\includegraphics[scale=.85]{wtd_ecdf_diff_points_plot.pdf}
	\label{fig:ecdf_diff}
\end{figure}

\begin{sidewaysfigure}
	\centering
	\caption{\textbf{Opinion Congruence: Effect Comparisons}}
	\includegraphics[scale=.9]{effect_comparison_weighted3.pdf}
	\label{fig:effect_comparison}
	\begin{minipage}{.9\textwidth} \small
	NOTE: Negative values mean that the first group is more congruent than the second. Solid dots indicate differences that are statistically significant at $p < 0.05$. 
	\end{minipage}
\end{sidewaysfigure}
\clearpage

\input{evang_convert_vs_lifelong_table.tex}
\clearpage

\clearpage
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\caption{\textbf{Frequency of Discussion of Selected Topics among Juiz de Fora Clergy}}
	\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{clergy_figure.pdf}
	\label{fig:clergy_survey.pdf}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\caption{\textbf{Variance in Support for Policy Issues, by Type of Community Site}}
	\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{congregation_variance_figure.pdf}
	\label{fig:congregation_survey.pdf}
\end{figure}


\section{Appendix Figures and Tables}
\clearpage

\setcounter{table}{0}
\setcounter{figure}{0}

\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\caption{Legislative Opinion and Behavior: Roll-Call Votes and Corresponding Issue Attitudes.}
	\includegraphics[scale=1]{rollcall.pdf}
	\label{fig:rollcall}
\end{figure}

\clearpage
\input{partic_table.tex}

\clearpage
\input{reg_table.tex}

\clearpage
\input{descr_table.tex}

\clearpage
\input{mass_descr_table.tex}

\clearpage
\input{demog_matrix.tex}

\clearpage
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\caption{Opinion Congruence: Differences in Distributions Using Alternative Measures of Partisanship}
	\includegraphics[scale=.9]{partyid_ecdf_plot.pdf}
	\label{fig:partyid_ecdf_plot}
\end{figure}

\clearpage
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\caption{\textbf{Opinion Congruence: Differences in Distributions, Disaggregated by Legislature}}
	\includegraphics[scale=.9]{wtd_ecdf_diff_points_plot_disagg.pdf}
	\label{fig:disagg}
\end{figure}

\setcounter{table}{8}

\clearpage
\input{n_table.tex}

\clearpage
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\caption{\textbf{Opinion Congruence: Mean Differences in Elite and Mass Positions}}
	\includegraphics[scale=.9]{meandiff_points_plot.pdf}
	\label{fig:meandiff}
\end{figure}

\clearpage
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\caption{\textbf{Opinion Congruence: Differences in Distributions using KS Statistics}}
	\includegraphics[scale=.9]{wtd_ks_points_plot.pdf}
	\label{fig:ks}
\end{figure}

\clearpage
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\caption{\textbf{Elite Sample Size and Congruence: Simulation Results}}
	\includegraphics[scale=.8]{wtd_ecdf_diff_points_plot_sample.pdf}
	\label{fig:sim}
	\begin{minipage}{.9\textwidth} \small
	NOTE: Entries correspond to sample sizes. The largest number for each area is the full sample size; smaller numbers correspond to the $N$ of subsamples used in the simulation. 
	\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

\clearpage
\input{client_table.tex}

\clearpage
\small
\input{results_table_abs_3_weighted3.tex}

\clearpage
\small
\input{results_table_abs_4_weighted3.tex}

\clearpage
\begin{sidewaysfigure}
	\centering
	\caption{\textbf{Opinion Congruence: Effect Comparisons (No Controls)}}
	\includegraphics[scale=.9]{effect_comparison_nocontrols_weighted3.pdf}
	\label{fig:effect_comparison_nocontrols}
	\begin{minipage}{.9\textwidth} \small
	NOTE: Negative values mean that the first group is more congruent than the second. Solid dots indicate differences that are statistically significant at $p < 0.05$. 
	\end{minipage}	
\end{sidewaysfigure}

\clearpage
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\caption{Opinion Congruence: Lifelong Evangelicals versus Converts. Data sources listed in the main text.}
	\includegraphics[scale=.9]{evang_convert_vs_lifelong_plot.pdf}
	\label{fig:lifelong_convert}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}
\caption{Variance Function Regression (Ordinary Least Squares): First Stage Results}
\label{vfr_firststage_reg}
\footnotesize
\centering
\input{vfr_firststage_reg.tex}
\end{table}

\clearpage
\begin{table}
\caption{Variance Function Regression (Ordinary Least Squares): Second Stage Results}
\label{vfr_secondstage_reg}
\centering
\input{vfr_secondstage_reg.tex}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\caption{Variance Function Regression (Iterated Maximum Likelihood): First Stage Results}
\label{vfr_firststage}
\footnotesize
\centering
\input{vfr_firststage.tex}
\end{table}

\clearpage
\begin{table}
\caption{Variance Function Regression (Iterated Maximum Likelihood): Second Stage Results}
\label{vfr_secondstage}
\centering
\input{vfr_secondstage.tex}
\end{table}


\end{document}

